Readers' comments

"Incitement to hostility" is too broad to be treated as an offence: it would include well-founded critique of a religious group. Otherwise - whatever produced clarity is a step in the right direction. The article's critique regarding the diversity of religious settlements within the EU really does miss the point. Hellelujah: the EU is not set on one particular form of settlement, and does not seek to advocate any particular form outside the EU. Rather the countries inside and outside the EU are called to a responsible ethic in state dealings with believers and with religious communities.

When as is obvious, the most influential politicians of the EU's right wing parties obssess themselves with ludicrous concepts of identity (a Ministry needed for that in France!) and this obssesion rising from arrogant, delberately-blinkered ignorance (perhaps more than anything else -lust for power and desires to tell others how to think and live apart),then where on earth can such policy go, further than any window dressing?
The Right in Austria, Germany, France and some other countries, insist that European Values mean Christianity (their way), even when they themselves practise little of what either Christianity, or 'European values ' (as defined by the competent authority of the Council of Europe) count as their central principles.
Scared of the democractic egalitariainsims of the one citizen one vote variety and obsessed with religion as the fig-leaf of decency for their policies and politics, they will continue to turn the EU into a 'Christian club' for the rich and relatively rich that can be dominated in effective decsion-making by French and German governments.

When we believe, we should do so on the basis of some established truths, which we perceive. In terms of religions there are no adequate proofs to support the claims made.

Therefore, because of the lack of proof we may well be engaging in self deception. We believe, either because we wish to do so, all because we were indoctrinated, usually at an early age.

There is no law which says we cannot practice self deception. However if we evangelize with the declared purpose of converting others, we normally concentrate on the poor, the uneducated and the vulnerable. It is one thing to deceive yourself, but it is surely an entirely different thing to deceive others.

If you have religious beliefs and keep them to your self that is one thing. But, when you deliberately try to convert others to your way of thinking then that is wrong, because you have no adequate proof for your contentions in the first place.

I am not convinced that the EU proposals can deal adequately with this aspect of "religious freedom".

Do you realize that by posting your beliefs about religion in a public medium what you are doing is exactly trying to convert others tho your way of thinking?
I fully respect your right to diffuse your religious opinions, even when I have strong reasons to think they are wrong in many points. Especially, when you do so in a polite and peaceful way.
But I would appreciate a bit more of consistency from secularists that think that religious opinions should be confined to the private area... except secularist ones, of course.

I think you misunderstand my intentions. I am not interested in proselytizing or imposing my views on someone else. I am simply pointing out the lack of independent evidence to support religious claims.

For instance there is no independent proof of the existence of God or gods. The so-called holy books of the major religions are riddled with logical and factual errors. Religious assumptions lead to logical disconnects such as the disconnect between the claimed omnipotence of God and the existence of individual free will.

In the light of these problems, I question why religion deserves special protection from the EU.

To put it bluntly, if religions were items for sale in a supermarket they would require a warning label, because the claims made for them, are not supported by facts.

I also feel that the lack of factual support for religions, is a fact, that I can use to support my arguments questioning religion.

There are many "independent" proofs of the Christian religión. They are the converts from other beliefs that freely decided to adhere to the truths they found in Christianity. André Frossard, for instance, experienced a mystical union with Jesus when he knew barely nothing about Christian doctrine and recognized God to exist and to be present in the Church.

I wonder whether you really know about the consistency and proofs of the Catholic religion. Why don't you read St. Thomas Aquinas and verify yourself that the Catholic teaching is consistent with itself and evidence?

And, by the way, the EU is not protecting religion. It is protecting the freedom of individuals. In this case, in the field of religious and philosophical freedom.

Let us take the matter step-by-step. If, you choose to worship God and persuade others to do so then you should have convincing evidence that God exists. If you cannot prove that God exists, then the fact that you choose to worship God is suspect. So far as I am aware there is no acceptable proof that God exists. This being the case I don't think you can advance the idea that conversion is an independent proof of the veracity of your assertions.

It is also true that history does not bear out the consistency and truth of the Catholic religion. Logically eternal truths should be unchanging. Over the centuries the Catholic Church has been forced to alter its stance on many matters which at the time were considered eternal truths. The infallibility of the Pope was one such eternal truth, and there are many others.

I would also dispute your assertion that the Catholic Church's teaching is consistent within itself. Here I would go back to my previous example of the concept of the omnipotence of God while at the same time claiming that there is individual free will. That is obviously inconsistent within itself.

In terms of the action of the EU, I would say that if the citizens of the EU really have an acceptable level of freedom of expression, then there is no reason to single out religion for special treatment.

Come on! You can try harder!
The consistency between God's omnipotence and free will is straightforward.
A. God is Almighty.
B. God loves freedom
C. God has voluntarily decided not to exert His full powers over some of His creatures (people and angels) by granting them free will. QED

“Why should other countries care what the EU thinks about religious freedom, you might ask: the EU accounts for a diminishing share of the world economy, and rising powers like India and China are in no mood to be lectured.”

Yes, the EU accounts for a diminishing share of the world economy, but the EU is still the largest economy in the world. With the logic that one shouldn’t pay any attention to economies with a diminishing share of the world economy one shouldn’t pay any attention to the US, or to the OECD either. But I guess then we might as well stop paying any attention to anything.

The EU document seeks to support both "religious freedom" and "the universality of human rights" at the same time.

This stance is extremely confusing and contradictory-- "universality of human rights" is mostly modern and continuously evolving concept. But religions are based on inherently reactionary ancient texts and traditions belonging to primitive, illiberal and tribal societies before Enlightenment.

This conflict between orthodox established religion and individual human freedom very much exists in the 21st century.

For example, in every single country, including Western countries, Gay rights have been vociferously undermined by all established religions (recently by the French Catholic Church).

Besides, all established religions that otherwise engage in cut-throat competition on a global scale forget their differences and become tag-team partners when it comes to crushing human civil liberties....

Truth be told, most established Religions and Human Freedom undercut each other and will always do. Therefore, EU cannot promote "religious freedom" and "human rights" simultaneously.

Contrary to the USA, the EU is a union of sovereign countries. Each of these countries has its own institutional framework, like constitution and independent Supreme Court, to safeguard basic rights of individuals and the infrastructure necessary for democracy. These institutional frameworks have often, at least in the north west of the continent, developed and matured over centuries. It would be practically impossible to quickly remove or quickly change this institutional framework in one country, let alone in all EU countries simultaneously.

Only sovereign democracies adhering to such values as respect for the right of the individual and the rule of law are allowed to be members of the EU. This is inscribed in treaties between sovereign countries. Needless to say, no country could unilaterally change an international treaty. A member country of the EU would face sanctions and eventually be kicked out of the union, if it stopped adhering to these common values. Thus, this is the mechanism, which like an additional safety net above the national institutional framework, makes it even more difficult for an EU member to turn undemocratic.

Therefore, your below statement is not a true one:

“In the EU there are no constitutional limitations to protect any human rights. There are merely policies. These policies may be changed tomorrow.”

Yours is a most reasoned reply and we agree on all of your points except that the US states are less sovereign than those of the EU, (but in practice you are also correct here).

My point is that the very authority of the US government to take certain actions is constitutionally limited and this is not true in the UK. The government of the UK decides what the human rights are and the government may make any changes that it decides. These changes are then legal while in the US they would not be.

For example if the government of the US were to deny the right to keep and bear arms, such a law would be null and void on its face. The government lacks the authority to pass such a law.

The EU is the proper guardian for religious liberty for the same reason that eunuchs were the proper guardians for the Sultan's harem. In both instances a lack of balls is the prime job requirement.

Religion, when believed and not just observed, is a dynamic force that shapes souls and societies. The new EU diktat seems to want to rationalize this force the way it sets standards for screws, accounting standards and roadside signage. If its strictures are heeded then religion will be denatured and emasculated -- like Europe itself. What the bureaucrats of the EU seem to want is to reduce faith to pleasant musings over lattes and Dubonnet in sidewalk cafes. It brings to mind the Leo McKern character in "Help," who tells a nodding C of E cleric, "We understand you do not share our belief in human sacrifice but, after all, let us agree to differ."

America, on the other hand, got this right on the first try: no government interference in religion. It cannot interfere on behalf of "tolerance" or to discourage "hate speech" or to "promote" so-called "human rights." People are allowed to believe as they wish, preach as they wish, compete, bump elbows and be as narrow-minded or wishy-washy as they wish. No one looks to DC for leadership, instruction or principled guidance in religion.

American clerics are often strident, outrageous and provocative. But, then, try to think of any moral leaders who were not one, or all, of these things. It is no job of religion to turn the world into one big Coca-Cola commercial ("I'd like to teach the world to sing/In perfect harmony, etc.") Religion that is seriously felt is as likely as not to be divisive -- and that is true of ALL serious causes.

The EU's stance is the "Play nice" nagging of a fading grande dame to her wayward children. It will, in the end, be ignored. It will probably be most seriously ignored by Muslims (for which we should admire them) but the half-dozen or so remaining serious European Christians will also be wise to tell the EU to buzz off.

Religion should be Elizabeathan in quality -- a bit raucous, intense, emotional and, ultimately, profound. Sadly, we our in the Age of Elizabeth II: tepid, shallow, accomodationist, demoralized and insipid.

I do agree with you that the US pretty much got it right internally as to how the government should interact with religion, but it's worth mentioning that the US government gets into quite public spats with other countries over how they should manage religious freedom.

The article's point was that the EU religion policy is not so much for EU members, but a set of principles over how the EU should interact with non-EU countries over religious matters. And the US is certainly in this business as well: it was a pretty big component of US-Soviet relations, and still affects US government relations with the former Soviet Union.

Only if you have your own romantic version of Elizabethan Protestant theocracy. Elizabethan theocracy had one state religion of Protestant variety. Catholics were persecuted, jailed, fined and murdered.

Also, Elizabethan theocracy did not tolerate other Protestants who deviated from the official state religion and liturgy, for example, the Puritans who had to flee to Netherlands and North America to save their ass from the tyrannies of Anglican Church and its bloodthirsty goons.

It is interesting that you single out "Elizabethan Protestant theocracy" in an age where most regimes showed little tolerance for those with dissenting views. Elizabeth’s sister Mary remains notorious for her repression of Protestants. Many of leading Catholics, during Elizabeth’s reign, were actively plotting to replace her with a Catholic monarch and were ‘repressed’ for their treason. In general Catholics and Protestants who disagreed with the tenets of Church of England were left alone if they practiced there beliefs privately and remained loyal to the crown, under Elizabeth’s rule.

The Puritans left for North America more than twenty years after Elizabeth’s death. During the English Civil war of the 1640’s the Puritans of Parliamentary forces took over the government and showed similar intolerance for those of differing views. The Puritans of New England were not known for their tolerance of differing religious practices.

The Founding Father’s of the USA recognized the importance separating religion from government, so that those having beliefs differing from the majority could not be prosecuted for disloyalty as was the case in Europe at the time.

I'm pretty sure we all understand that by "Elizabeathen" I meant the churning, self-confident and expressive worldview that produced Shakespeare, Marlowe and Johnson (not to mention Drake.) This is the quality of American Protestantism during the various "Great Revivals," such as Cane Ridge.

One sees something of these qualities in Islam, Pentecostalism (worldwide) and Christianity in modern Africa (at least in those places where Europeans have been unable to pollute it with political correctness.)

Don't confuse the Ghandi of the movies with the Ghandi of history. In his opposition to British rule he was, indeed provocative (what else was the March to the Sea for Salt?) Nelson Mandela? No, the ninety year-old statesman is quite calming. Go back sixty years and he challenged Boer authority in the most strident possible ways.

Washington, Jefferson and Franklin were flawed men doing the best they could for their countrymen. The first two were slaveowners. They were sound statesmen -- they does not make them moral.

And the Muslim World is:
-close(Sharing the Mediterranean Sea and a short swim from Spain),
-young(over 50% under 30 yo)
-highly fertile(Palestinian women average over 8 children)
-tenaciously religious(no one has ever successfully left the religion in history--under pain of death as proscribed by the Koran.)

Unless Islam spread is halted, Europe will be part of a new Caliphate.

According to the Pew Forum on Religion, about 76% of people in the European Union identify as Christian, about the same as the US. Far less attend religious services, or consider religion an important part of their lives, though.

Something like 18% are "irreligious" (which includes but is not equivalent to atheists), and something like 5% are Muslims. The EU is a long way from Eurabia.

Good point. Also, I would hazard a guess that many of those 5% "Muslims" would be nominal Muslims, just like "Christians" who are Christians because their parents happened to be Christian and/or White.

Moreover, why is it hard to conceive that many "irreligious" and "atheist" folks actually come from non-Christian religious backgrounds, e.g. Muslims.

And if, in extreme likelihood, The Eurabia threat REALLY begins to materialize, Western world can always follow the advice of Ann Coulter-- They should invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

The complaint about Euro countries being comfortable with very diverse regimes is strange. That is precisely the point: within fundamental rights, there is room for any number of society-religion relationships.

Basically the message should be "religions should be house-trained. If yours is still young, wild, noisy and barking, keep it on a leash and a muzzle".

"YOU probably haven't noticed it, but the European Union has just acquired a religion policy. Quite an elaborate one in fact. On June 24th, the Union's foreign ministers approved a set of "guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief". They spell out in great detail the ideas about religious liberty which the Union will put forward in its dealings with other countries."

To protect savage beliefs from criticism. The EU is concerned with the surrender and betrayal of European Peoples. And if its aims were legitimate it would not need stealth. Britain and the rest, get out of the EU while you can!

"Europe's leaders need to shout about the subject from the roof-tops, or else admit they don't care about it."

This is just a false dichotomy. Many parts of the world where religion poses problems between groups, it is exactly because the leaders shout about the subject from the roof tops. A quiet and painstaking (apparently, I admit I haven't read the document) examination of what freedom of expression and freedom of religion means in the world today is exactly what the EU is rather good at. Even if it doesn't make the front page of the Sun "These loony Eurocrats telling you how to pray ..." it will still be used by pressure groups, legal drafters and others trying to improve their own structures.

And to argue that it is hypocrisy to preach to others without practising the same oneself: this is surely the foundation of all religious exposition (and I'm not being over critical) since Moses. Indeed, if we did not say "Do as I say rather than do as I do" then we would not be looking for any improvement in our religious practice but rather racing to the bottom. Anyway, again without having read the document, I would be very surprised if there is much in it that is not already practised by most Member States, and the gaps will soon be filled by pressure which this document can help to supply.

Thank you for this very objective critique of the article. I would have written the same but as I am not at all pleased with the sensationalist nature of the article, I probably wouldn't have found such objective words! Bravo!

The EU contemplates having Turkey as one of it's members someday, perhaps.It still has in contemplation having Croatia and Serbia also within the club. This, in addition to the headache that fundamentalist Islam is causing us not only in Europe but around the world. The EU panjandrums who proposed and now prescribe these 'guidelines' certainly do not come across as serious. With the decline of the main Christian faith/s [ generally ] within the EU and the sever economic storms now buffeting the Union, one wonders whether EU foreign ministers and the Union as a whole has nothing better to do. I am certain most of the electorate will not be impressed, it is this sort of thing that brings the EU into disrepute.

People do not have a choice about their enthnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or age. They do have a choice about whether or not to profess a religion - and about which religion they profess if they do.

Therefore people have a right to profess or not to profess a religion and to profess a religion of their choice, but, equally, other citizens have a right to express, without restriction, their rejection of and disagreement with any or all of the tenets of any religion being professed - but violence or incitement of violence towards the person or persons professing these tenets should, of course, be proscribed.

It would be far better if the EU's Grand Panjandrums had focused on the choice-based nature of religious profession and re-affirmed these simple principles rather than conducting the 'dancing on the head of a pin' exhibited in this document.

Of course, if it did so, it might find that some Member States have statutorily backed procedures that contravene these primciples. For example, the Code of Practice of the Press Council in Ireland (Principle 8) states that "Newspapers and magazines shall not publish material intended or likely to cause grave offence or stir up hatred against an individual or group on the basis of their race, religion, nationality, colour, ethnic origin, membership of the travelling community, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age."

Quite so. There are immutable human characteristics and there are choices and opinions.

Let's take Fred (and assume he has not had a religion forced on him by circumstance of birth).

Fred can choose if he is religious or not. Let's say he chooses to be religious.

Fred can then choose polytheism or monotheism. Let's say he chooses monotheism.

Fred then has to choose his creator from a long list of exclusive and contradictory claims. Let's say he chooses Yahweh.

Fred then has to choose whether he is a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim. Let's say he chooses Christian.

Fred then has to choose if he is Catholic, Anglican, Presbiterian, Methodist, Evangelical, Seventh Day, Mormon etc.etc.etc.....well, maybe you could argue about the last but you get the picture. Let's say he chooses Catholic.

Fred then has to decide what kind of Catholic he is and what position he takes on Liberation Theology, the role of women, equal rights for LGBT people, condom use, abortion etc.etc.etc.

And so it goes on.

Put shortly, unlike race, gender or sexual orientation which are basic characteristics of actual living human beings, religion is a matter of choice and opinion and, as others have said before me, human rights are for humans, not opinions and opinions must be challenged and tested without fear or favour if society is to adopt the best of these ideas and progress.

Or as the Economist prints at the beginning of each edition:

First published in 1843 to take part in a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress.

This is unusually poorly-argued for an Economist piece, and really seems like criticism for criticism's sake.

The "paradox" isn't a paradox at all: the EU already requires its members to guarantee religious freedom, and it's not seeking to impose one or no state religion on non-members with this new document. The quietness is a false dichotomy, because it's ultimately the media which decide what to report, not politicians. The Economist doesn't stop the presses just because the prime minister of, say, Slovakia speaks out on an issue.

To assess the poverty or richness of the argument, it may be a good idea to look beyond Erasmus's poor presentational skills and consider the substance of the question. Some people might see a paradox in the fact that an organisation whose founding charter stresses its members' autonomy in religious matters should issue a document running to nearly 8,000 words about the religious policy that it expects others to follow. Some people might not see any paradox. But perhaps the burden of proof lies more heavily on the second camp. The first step is to read the 8,000 words.

The strength or weakness of the two concluding criticisms aside, given the title of the piece, "A Religious Policy by Stealth", I felt this article did a fine job of its main objective - to bring to attention an under-noticed piece of EU legislation.

The EU doesn't stress "its members' autonomy in religious matters". It requires freedom of religion. This document also requires freedom of religion. On the other hand, the EU doesn't require its members to have a state religion, or its absence. This document also doesn't require a state religion, or its absence. There is no burden of proof here, as there is no ambiguity. Some topics are subject to EU approval consistently (basic freedoms). Some aren't, also consistently (state religion). You're simply setting up another false dichotomy.

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has only one section about religion, and it says:

The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States. The Union equally respects the status under national law of philosophical and non-confessional
organisations. Recognising their identity and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations.

For better or worse, this section validates concordats and regimes of establishment which purist libertarians consider to be gross violations of liberty. It also validates the strict secularism of France.

Does this amount to a stress on national autonomy in religious matters? Others can judge. The words were written in response to strong demands for autonomy in religious matters, and they satisfied the parties which had made those demands. But stress is a hard thing to calibrate precisely.

Here is the sum total -- TOTAL of every word in the U.S. Constitution on the subject of religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or respecting the free exercise thereof."

Sixteen words -- not 8,000 -- and things have worked fine for a quarter-millennium.

But, then, Jefferson, Madison and Adams were, respectively, two farmers and a lawyer. Politics was a part time profession that they did not especially enjoy.

How many thousands labor today in Brussels to inflate a verbal dirigible like the above statement on religion?

Indeed. One need not look further than laicite in France and the status of the Orthodox Church in Greece (church members are paid salaries by the government, exempt from paying taxes, and are the only religion allowed by law to "proselytize") to see that the EU does not have very consistent principles on religion among EU member states.

I have to agree and sympathise. All the EU needs to make clear to future potential partners is that our values will not under any circumstances trumped by those of religions or other philosophies.
Our support for peoples right to privately believe that we and our values ought to go to hell should be a reluctant but necessary footnote rather than the headline.

And I'm also sure nothing will be done to prevent the hate speech towards Christians that comes hand in hand with the gay lobbies' activitites.

In my opinion that does not make a complete waste of time. We really do no more live in the dark ages. Everybody can freely express his opinions.

Ooops! Perhaps not. I do not know of any homnosexual being trialed by insulting religion in Europe, but several people has recently being put to trial just by expressing the Bible's views on homosexual conduct.

This would be much easier if the focus was shifted to guaranteeing freedom from religion rather than of it. It should go without saying that people ought to be allowed to think and do what they like as long as it is otherwise legal. What shouldn't be accepted is those actions or beliefs inconveniencing, disadvantaging or costing those who didn't consent to be so affected.

Hate speech, discrimination, misuse of public funds, brainwashing kids etc. should all be independently illegal. The EU gives religion far too much respect by making special proclamations about it - we don't need them. Religious criminals are just criminals.

"... much easier if the focus was shifted to guaranteeing freedom from religion rather than of it... people ought to be allowed to think and do what they like as long as it is otherwise legal."

You little drama queen, you.

We have had freedom of conscience for centuries in the West now, so the right to be irreligious, and indeed, the right to think as you'd like, are all completely protected, codified, habitualized and drilled into our very collective psyche. And here you are, writing as if you just stepped out of the 16th century, and clearly thinking that you are a modern Erasmus.

I really hope you didn't think you were real clever & cutting-edge when you wrote your comment.

Governments that guarantee "Freedom from ____" mostly went out of style over the second half of the twentieth century. "Freedom from" normally requires limiting a populations' autonomy to experience what they are being "freed from".

It's easy to see if you replace 'religion' with something else. "Freedom from democracy" or "Freedom from bankers" or "Freedom from capitalism" or "Freedom from immigrants" or "Freedom from minorities". Fortunately the EU doesn't make it a priority to guarantee the kind of freedoms you suggest.

This isn't about the West - even the EU recognise that there is nothing that needs to be said to its members. This is about the "ideas about religious liberty which the Union will put forward in its dealings with other countries". I happen to live in one where people are subjected to various forms of barbarism by the religious community and the secular state will not intervene to protect them despite constitutional guarantees of "religious freedom". So I accept that it's fair to say I haven't just stepped out of the 16th century. Rather more unfortunately I still appear to be living in it and wish the EU would object to that fact on my behalf.

The monsters that whip, ostracise and threaten those who don't buy their mythology will be very happy to know that the EU supports their freedom to carry on behaving like this. I would be a prouder European today if our representatives had taken the opportunity to make it clear that forcing your religious views and practices on others is anathema to the European view of human rights.

Provided people are protected from this sort of persecution, they don't need a champion to support their right to think what they like any more than the sky needs the right to rain.

Gabe, you're right; bankers, capitalism, chickens, or a billion other word choices are nonsensical in a "freedom from sentence". You have completely destroyed that particular straw man.
I do have the right to freedom from discrimination. I do have the right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. There are many more. I accept that it would be wrong of the state to limit your right to be subjected to these things if you like them - whatever turns you on mate. I just don't see how guaranteeing my freedom from an abuse limits my autonomy to experience it or why it would matter much if it did.

Many now annoy me with their religious End Times(Global Warming)discussions. I don't mind the scientific discussion and I am interested in this part, but the religious part really annoys me. I never consented to having this discussed.

What I most like about your proposal is that it requires that the religious zealots in the global warming camp be silenced or imprisoned. It would be illegal to annoy me.

"What shouldn't be accepted is those actions or beliefs inconveniencing, disadvantaging or costing those who didn't consent to be so affected."